451. Town Hall Seattle: God Is Not Great

Comment #57281 by Yorker on July 18, 2007 at 6:27 pm

7. Comment #57185 by VinceMcD

Normally the line is: "If you gave him an enema you could bury him in a matchbox". But this time he said "shoe box", actually in spite of the crappy editing I think he said "fucking shoe box" on this occasion.

452. Town Hall Seattle: God Is Not Great

Comment #57279 by Yorker on July 18, 2007 at 6:15 pm

Now that I've watched, I think it was probably the best Hitch show so far. The audio/video police who censored the the item annoyed me through incompetence and idiocy. First a text warning of bad language is shown but they go ahead and attempt to cut the sex and swear words anyway, (perhaps they think we can't read). However, they made a nonsense of the whole plan by allowing a "fuck" to go unedited, and how many children did they think would watch this anyhow?

453. Town Hall Seattle: God Is Not Great

Comment #57250 by Yorker on July 18, 2007 at 4:42 pm

16. Comment #57215 by phil rimmer

"In a few years time Hitch will be doing this stuff in comedy clubs up and down the land. I can just see him on a dark stage picked out by a single spotlight."

I think he's already doing it! At least that's what the casual visitor might think by reading some of the comments here. People are starting to treat him like a pop star, it amazes me that even clever persons are suckers for "celebitis", they can't wait to hear their idol utter the same old phrases they've heard many times before. Kinda like the "I didn't do it" phrase from the Simpsons episode when Bart became famous!

454. Darwin or Design

Comment #56762 by Yorker on July 17, 2007 at 6:23 am

35. Comment #56743 by the_assayer

As a young man I rarely thought about death but now I'm in my sixties it enters my thoughts frequently. I'm aware my body is running down, aches and pains come for no apparent reason and the urge to consider how much time is left is inescapable. However, as a lifelong atheist I can honestly say that I don't fear death; naturally, I hope the process of dying won't be a long and painful business but that's all that concerns me.

The extremely unlikely possibility that an afterlife where I will rejoin loved ones and friends exists, is certainly appealing and to a shallow-thinking religite, it seems to be a foundation of their delusion since they think it's true. I think you're probably right that some sort of placebo effect is at work here; what interests me is what they would do if they could be actually convinced it's not going to happen? I suspect that most would be able to handle it quite well; they might even scold themselves for needing the placebo in the first place! Sadly, I'm convinced there will always be those, for whom religion is not just preferred, but needed; I pity them, they waste part of the only life they're ever going to have.

The concept of heaven, hell and soul, has always amused me since I was about twelve years old, I simply couldn't understand how people could believe such nonsense. Perhaps being raised in a non-religious family and living in a rural area where death in animals was a common sight, had some effect on me. As for dead people, I saw my first one at age fifteen and have seen quite a few since then, it's unmistakeable, not at all like sleep, nowadays when someone dies – as a friend did recently – I never view their bodies, I prefer to remember them as they were in life; when they existed.

Hell is obviously a ludicrous idea designed to cruelly threaten children and keep uneducated people in line, Heaven is the carrot. I like E.O. Wilson's thoughts on it: after the first few trillion years, it's going to get pretty boring!

455. Darwin or Design

Comment #56749 by Yorker on July 17, 2007 at 5:29 am

As soon as I saw an ID'er was responsible for the series I knew I wouldn't listen to them all -- a huge waste of time -- but curiosity alone made me listen to PZ. The comments of "thesciphishow" here have confirmed my original decision; the usual old story, a deluded person unable or unwilling to accept the fact of evolution staring him in the face who tries pathetic "word-wangling" as a means of bolstering up a groundless position.

The vast majority here would change their minds in the light of compelling evidence; his kind never will, they fear the truth; they can't accept that "god magic" won't save them from non-existence when they die. I won't address this religite directly since it's 99.999999 percent certain that he'll be unable to present me with evidence against evolution, or indeed, even a half decent argument so why waste time with something we've all heard many times before. Additionally, I suspect this fellow is teetering on the brink of "trolldom" right now; I wouldn't want to encourage him!

456. Found: the giant lion-eating chimps of the magic forest

Comment #56517 by Yorker on July 16, 2007 at 5:20 am

12. Comment #56485 by BT Murtagh

The article mentions lion-killing and eating specifically; hunting in other words. In a scientific claim like this, use of language in a non-literal way would be both wrong and silly since it's of major importance that facts are presented unambiguously Therefore, I think we should take this literally, after all, that's why we have many different words that mean similar, but not the same things!

It is well known that chimps are meat lovers but stating that they kill and eat big cats is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence, this article fails to provide it.

457. Found: the giant lion-eating chimps of the magic forest

Comment #56345 by Yorker on July 15, 2007 at 7:12 am

Something seems wrong here.

I can accept the leopard story since they are forest dwelling ambush predators, but lions? How do the chimps hunt them? Lions are not forest dwellers so either they enter the chimp environment or vice-versa. No, I'm not going to accept this until I see much more convincing evidence concerning these lion-eating chimps, it's a little er'...hard to swallow!

458. Lecture on Neo-Darwinism

Comment #52687 by Yorker on June 27, 2007 at 6:31 pm

4. Comment #52678 by CloudedHills

If he was an unknown Prof. appropriate dress might lend weight to credibility, Dawkins already has ample credibility. More importantly however, it took place on a boat in the Galapagos, at the equator, who the hell would want to wear a suit there? I noticed on a previous Galapagos thread he was barefooted with shorts and tee shirt, perhaps sans underpants! That's exactly the right tropical garb in my experience.

459. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #52597 by Yorker on June 27, 2007 at 12:15 pm

33. Comment #52405 by Philip1978 and other MIND_REBEL supporters.

Thanks to all who backed me on this issue, let's hope that reinstatement to full "commentary status" will swiftly follow for MIND_REBEL! Now I'll shut-up lest I suffer the same fate for being off-topic!!

460. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #52329 by Yorker on June 26, 2007 at 6:38 pm

Have the rules changed? I'm sure the "alternative" thread was set up some months ago to accommodate people who wanted to waste time and space with trolls, now I find comments by long-time regular MIND_REBEL, relegated to this ignominious place. I almost never entirely agree with MIND_REBEL but in the past I've been forced to defend this person against people who clearly see theselves as intellectually superior. I have yet to see a single instance where MIND_REBEL has made an unwise or invalid comment and has tried to defend it after being attacked by those wishing to sully him/her. I asked for a little slack to be given, evidently without success.

Not all us atheists are gifted with insightful abilities, we should encourage people who are with us, not belittle them. I strongly question the motives of those who seek to denigrate our friend MIND_REBEL and others, I see such an attitude as weakening the atheist position, apart from that it's also unwise; let me be blunt, it's fucking stupid! I visit this site less and less these days and things like this remind me why.

So MIND_REBEL, I have no need to apologise to you but perhaps those need to will have the courage to do so, you have the right to expect it.

461. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #51615 by Yorker on June 23, 2007 at 7:25 pm

35. Comment #51589 by Corylus

"Maybe I should write a book of my own. "Manchester United is not great: football poisons everything??"

Hey, good idea Corylus and not too far off the mark, go ahead and write your book, this is one male who would buy it. I dislike the football business -- it stopped being a game years ago -- almost as much as I dislike religion!

462. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #51244 by Yorker on June 22, 2007 at 3:37 am

17. Comment #51166 by Enlightenme..

"Don't know much about Peter, is he a 'dyed in the wool' ?"

No, he's not a thickoid, he's actually thought about it! Both Hitch's were asked last night how two brothers had such opposing views, PH replied that they'd been brought up to be independently-minded.

463. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #51240 by Yorker on June 22, 2007 at 3:29 am

19. Comment #51173 by cathjm

Well Hexy, I would have said that on this occasion, the eyes of PH were bloodshot. I don't know why you asked this question but presumably you think I dislike CH, not so, his views are more in line with mine and I much prefer him to PH. I mentioned CH's physical condition because I see and hear symptoms in him that I once had so I fear for his health. I was never the boozer he is but I smoked heavily, eventually I saw the light and eradicated tobacco from my life, I hope CH can do the same. All through the show I could hear him coughing and clearing his lungs, it brought back bad memories.

464. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #51161 by Yorker on June 21, 2007 at 7:50 pm

I wonder if CH holds the same pro-death penalty views his brother does? I heard PH rattle on about the correctness of the DP on BBC radio recently.

Incidentally, I watched them both on Question Time tonight; CH looked as bad as I've ever seen him, bloodshot eyes, blotchy complexion in angry shades of red but he was still lucid and looked but didn't talk, very drunk. PH on the other hand, looked much healthier but wasn't so entertaining. CH was in top form early on as he delivered a swift arse-kicking to Shirley Williams over the Salman Rushdie knighthood, it didn't fare well with the audience though and he resorted to brow-beating them into applauding him! Hilarious. I'll say no more since a video clip may appear.

465. Richard Dawkins: Atheist

Comment #50968 by Yorker on June 20, 2007 at 6:33 pm

9. Comment #50955 by Levid

Yes, the fat guy {McVety) was funny but only because he was a complete idiot. It is a fact that I sit here at a wooden desk typing. Evolution is a fact. It is a fact that some people are fucking stupid enough to think they can have an opinion about a fact. I think RD should attack these dolts with that kind of hard-line simplicity; force them to see how utterly idiotic they truly are.

466. The Future Forum Presents: Christopher Hitchens and Marvin Olasky

Comment #50012 by Yorker on June 14, 2007 at 2:24 pm

49. Comment #49975 by JesusH

"Lets face it, most atheists, myself included are quite intolerant and hateful against religion in a way that we are not towards types of irrationality."

I basically see your point but it's not exactly accurate, scanning the history of this site reveals that atheists are not quite intolerant of religion, they are very intolerant of it. Perhaps it's because religion is rather more dangerous than other forms of nonsense so people spit more venom at it.

Your point about non-Abrahamic religions may have a nationalistic bias, maybe we're more likely to dislike the religion of our country more, simply because we know more about the effect it has on daily life. I think convertee's to atheism display this characteristic more that people like myself who've never been religious and who think they all suck. However, I can see that one or two comments here on this thread alone, lend some weight to your remarks.

467. The Future Forum Presents: Christopher Hitchens and Marvin Olasky

Comment #49959 by Yorker on June 14, 2007 at 9:16 am

Somewhat disappointing. Hitch didn't wipe the floor with Olasky but could have and perhaps should have. He let his opponent off the hook a few times but most noticeably on the evolutionary point, perhaps a few lessons from RD would be beneficial to him. I'm beginning to think Hitch is not quite as smart as I thought he was, but he sure knows how to to curry favour by pandering to American patriotism with his customary white jacket and USA flag lapel pin. I also see symptoms in him that I had, he'd better stop smoking soon.

Finally, nice to see a hassle-free non-Apple, non-Real, high quality WMV file on this site. I don't come here that often now, there may have been more but that was the first I've seen.

468. Beggars belief: Robin McKie on The God Delusion

Comment #47142 by Yorker on June 3, 2007 at 5:58 am

13. Comment #47118 by pewkatchoo

Smack on the button, I've thought the same for some time now. To be taken seriously and seen as a powerful force for change, atheists must learn to unite and curb irrelevant comments against supporters. For a few weeks I've tried to view the goings on here objectively; we don't look good, enemies would be justified in thinking us a disunited bunch, easily-defeated for that simple reason.

Many here justifiably rail against Islam and point out the obvious deficiencies; I've yet to see a post that highlights the fact that unity is the source of strength for Islam and all religions. Look at what's happening right now between Sunni and Shia, we should be encouraging this inter-Islamic conflict, their leaders have failed to realize that this warfare can only weaken their religion in the long term. Christianity also suffers from these "brand" problems; pity help us if some savvy leader manages to completely unite a religion and use it politically. Luckily, the human tendency for greed and personal power will probably prevent such a situation, there will always be someone who wants it differently.

That's what we see here, a bunch of individuals who will remain as you say, members of a "talking-shop" whose minds and hearts may be good but are unable to make anything happen, in short, a group of ineffectual intellectuals.

469. Groundbreaking Research Has Scientists Talking With Apes

Comment #46449 by Yorker on May 31, 2007 at 9:18 am

The story of Kanzi is an old one, I've come across it several times.

However, bonobos are the horniest creatures on Earth, if I could match their copulation rate (8 to 10 times per hour), I'd consider giving up talking :)

470. Hitchens and Prager Debate

Comment #46072 by Yorker on May 30, 2007 at 6:24 am

15. Comment #46051 by Russell Blackford

Since you ask.

I think anyone asking such a silly question obviously designed as a trap, doesn't deserve a yes/no answer, they deserve, and would get from me, an arse-kicking; certainly verbally and possibly physically depending upon my assessment of them. People adopting such a dishonourable debating tactic should be chastised.

471. Christopher Hitchens at Politics and Prose

Comment #45950 by Yorker on May 29, 2007 at 6:38 pm

Comments by NMcC and kwhitefoot

Yes, he made the mistake of calling Weinberg a biologist, or was it it a mistake...I wonder?

A month before this talk Hitchens became an American citizen so he wasn't a foreign atheist. It was probably a wise move on his part, Americans seem to like that, I well remember my American friends urging me to become a citizen also.

472. Christopher Hitchens at Politics and Prose

Comment #45947 by Yorker on May 29, 2007 at 6:21 pm

It's always enjoyable to watch and listen to Hitchens, his secret is simple; he entertains. He engages with people and doesn't appear aloof as Dawkins and Dennett do on occasion; he exposes his human failings – smoking, drinking etc. – and avoids the cold, robot-like state that Harris often falls into. These characteristics endear him to an audience who surprise themselves by applauding that which they might boo if voiced by another bullshitter. Because that's what Hitch is; a very knowledgeable bullshitter, one who understands its value and knows how to make the most of its charm; couple that with mastery of avoidance and deflection and you have the essence of his debating skills and appeal.

Yes, his points are repeated as are his jokes, but at least he makes an attempt at humour. The very nature of the religious topic ensures that the same old shit is repeated again and again, the other three do it also, one can't blame Hitch for being similar; he has no option. I must admit I like him because he reminds me of me, but he reminds me even more of my father, indeed, I'm beginning to wonder if we are somehow related since he and my dad were born in the same town and came from historically military roots. I've not yet read Hitchens' latest book because I recently came to the conclusion that I had nothing to gain by reading more anti-religion publications, however, since he has entertained me I'll do him the favour of buying his work, many seem to think it's the best of the latest bunch.

473. Scientists divided over alliance with religion

Comment #45913 by Yorker on May 29, 2007 at 3:36 pm

I've always thought "Mr Fox" had a soft spot for religion.

474. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #45781 by Yorker on May 29, 2007 at 8:28 am

When are you atheistic wankers (or plinkers), ever going to learn that attempting to debate people like Robertson who suffer from a terminal case of the god virus, is a complete and utter waste of time? Holy shit, is there any one of you who really thinks that you will be the one who converts him, that gets him to admit that he's been wrong all those years? Get a grip! It's not going to happen!

Committed religites are beyond redemption, they must be allowed to expire naturally, just let it happen, the process is inexorable they will die, their delusion is doomed, it's just a matter of time. In the meantime, the danger that they might cause the demise of sane people is real, there's no doubt we'll have to fight that, but thinking we can talk them out of it is intellectually naïve. It is entirely possible that we might have to eradicate religious fanaticism by force, if that happens, it will serve as a good lesson for those who survive these wars, it will teach us never again to allow manipulators preaching nonsense, to poison the minds of uneducated people; a lesson we badly need and not just because of religion.

I no longer bother trying to debate those unwilling to see reason and never see any new argument for or against religion I've never heard before; my interest in this time-wasting topic is waning. So, naturally, my interest in this site will be concerned with other matters it sometimes brings to our attention and hope that more effort will be expended on providing more interesting information and articles. Frankly, I'm surprised that some of you here who are evidently well educated and intelligent, don't get bored by this constant bickering over the folly of religion, it seems to act like an addiction, many of you seem to need your daily fix, perhaps I'm lucky since I don't.

475. E.O. Wilson and Daniel Dennett

Comment #44909 by Yorker on May 25, 2007 at 2:43 pm

I wouldn't be surprised if E.O. Wilson turned the invitation to the BB down, last year he cited a frantic schedule as the reason. I'd like to see him there but get the feeling he won't show again, I have no concrete evidence why, so I won't try to explain.

476. Despite what the scholars say, God isn't dead yet

Comment #44185 by Yorker on May 23, 2007 at 3:00 pm

38. Comment #44065 by ranjani

I think I first heard it in an interview with Prof. Ian Kershaw, probably the world's foremost expert on Hitler and Nazism. A quick Google for "Hitler + Muslim" should get what you want, I've come across it many times in recent months.

477. Busted Halo

Comment #44012 by Yorker on May 23, 2007 at 7:20 am

8. Comment #43980 by whirledviews

Shouldn't that be the God virus?

478. Despite what the scholars say, God isn't dead yet

Comment #44004 by Yorker on May 23, 2007 at 7:09 am

Yes, Hitler was a Catholic, but why is it that no-one ever mentions his Muslim legions that numbered in the tens of thousands?. He considered Islam to be the perfect religion for a soldier and explicitly stated that no soldier should ever be an atheist.

479. The Paradoxical Hatred of Christopher Hitchens

Comment #42923 by Yorker on May 20, 2007 at 5:42 am

"Christians are commanded to love everyone, including those they believe are "lost." They do not believe that those they don't like are doomed for hell. Rather, they believe the Bible teaches we are all doomed unless we have saving faith in Jesus Christ, who died for our sins. Christians are not the ones pronouncing judgment on their fellow man in this regard, but believe God has revealed, through Scripture, his plan for divine judgment."

This is the kind of stuff that makes me cringe. Why would humans accept a status lower than any other animal by allowing themselves to be "commanded" and "judged" by even a real entity, let alone a non-existent, ego-maniacal non-entity?

Hello Micronut, let me extend the hand of welcome to you on your first post.

480. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42914 by Yorker on May 20, 2007 at 5:16 am

94. Comment #42860 by steve99

What? You think I made it up? I'm amazed that arseholes exist who assume that just because they didn't know something then it must be wrong. Are you one of those? I take that as an insult, you're lucky we're not in the same room!

Dawkins exact words:

"Darwin chased God out of his old haunts in biology, and he scurried for safety down the rabbit hole of physics. The laws and constants of the universe, we were told, are too good to be true: a set-up, carefully tuned to allow the eventual evolution of life. It needed a good physicist to show us the fallacy, and Victor Stenger lucidly does so. The faithful won't change their minds, of course (that is what faith means) but Victor Stenger drives a pack of energetic ferrets down the last major bolt hole and God is running out of refuges in which to hide. I learned an enormous amount from this splendid book."

It took me all of ten seconds to find that on this site, now go find it and convince yourself that I didn't make it up!

481. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42821 by Yorker on May 19, 2007 at 10:09 pm

Wow, for a moment I thought Ryan.Vilbig was worthy of addressing but after that little tirade I see there's nothing more to be said to him, of him perhaps, but not to him. You others may think otherwise of course.

482. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42816 by Yorker on May 19, 2007 at 9:40 pm

86. Comment #42812 by Ryan.Vilbig

I really think that this site should be shut-down and that Oxford should dismiss Mr. Darkwins for embarrassing the scientific community by making claims that he cannot substantiate with evidence.

You mean like the claims of the few religite scientists you mentioned? In any case Ryan, we have this thing called freedom on the web, it allows anyone to say anything they like and don't have to fear religious or scientific policemen like yourself. I would have thought the ravings of the embarrassingly nonsensical godite sites would have made that clear to you. Just who the hell do you think you are? I certainly don't agree with everything I see here, but I wouldn't dream of being so arrogant as to demand its closure. Why are you as an apparently educated person, unable to understand that the majority of rational thinkers find your god to be highly unlikely? We all started off as atheists, the difference is that you allowed another human being - there's no other possibility - to sell you a fairy tale, most here did not. I'm getting fed up with things on this site also, mostly fed up having to tell you religites that we need evidence, your failure to grasp that amazes me. Incidentally, I once thought highly of your friend Paul Davies, but now I think he's lost his way, a pity. So goodbye Ryan, your stay was short lived but as I said, this is a place of freedom and you're free to leave. I won't even bother to argue over your twisting of my statement.

483. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42804 by Yorker on May 19, 2007 at 6:32 pm

81. Comment #42768 by steve99

Haven't we had this discussion before? There may well be multiple Universes but so what? We know of only one and only one planet upon which evolution has operated, the rest, if you'll forgive the expression, is pie in the sky! Talking of fine tuning about this or any other Universe, makes no sense to me - it's a Feynman-ism, we're here! I think Vic Stenger is a pretty good physicist and I don't hold that opinion alone. He was talking sensibly about this Universe and this planet, not some other places that at least for the moment, are purely imaginary. People who want to make the mistake of assuming greater complexity challenge his assertion, but none so far have proved him wrong. Can you? I think you could do better than than Island1 above who clearly knows nothing of Stenger yet feels he can ridicule him then points pathetically to Paul Davies stuff. Well, you know how I feel about Davies since he became a Templeton convert so we need not go there again.

Nobody knows why the Universe is the way it is, perhaps we never will, but the fact is we're here so the question is academic and irrelevant. Stenger's Occams Razor-like explanation seems perfectly reasonable to me, those who argue against it need to get real and decide what planet they think they're on! Finally, I was pleased to see that Richard Dawkins latched onto Stenger's insight enthusiastically. So sorry Steve, when it comes to reality, I don't think Vic's thinking is poor, I think it's good and simple – the best kind.

484. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42765 by Yorker on May 19, 2007 at 12:33 pm

Both versions (strong and weak) of the Anthropic Principle have been used for many years, especially in "fine-tuning" arguments about cosmological constants. Nowadays, I see no need for them, Stenger's explanation does a much better and simpler job as I've said forward before on this site. Perhaps it's worth repeating; our Universe is as it is; we are as we are; the Universe was not tuned to suit us, evolution fine-tuned us to suit the planet and Universe we were born in.

76. Comment #42760 by roach

The binary part is simple enough, quantum mechanics is another matter!
My comment 74 was a hint that a person able to do the simple binary-to-decimal conversion of the number on my avatar, would instantly see the significance of that number if they had even just a little QM knowledge.

…I was going to give it away but there are one or two people here who might decipher it now they have a clue, so for those who like puzzles??

485. Manufacturing belief

Comment #42739 by Yorker on May 19, 2007 at 9:52 am

40. Comment #42628 by roach

Perhaps you mean people like myself, applied scientists who like to see a result, something tangible culminating from their design efforts. I wouldn't say I'm dismissive of philosophy but I confess I don't place very high value on its practitioners. I do enjoy listening to some of them and considering their ideas, but they never actually produce anything and so have limited usefulness. I mean the kind of usefulness that can directly improve the lives of ordinary people.

I must say I was influenced by Feynman in my attitude to philosopy and also psychiatry because it suited my character. I'm basically a practical person who sees a problem that needs fixed, or the need for a physical object to be designed and built that would prove useful. I get greater satisfaction from coming up with the idea and applying it, than just coming up with the idea. I've found others like me feel similarly about pure thinkers -- they can only get the satisfaction that comes from peer approval; for us "significance junkies" as Sagan described us, that's not enough.

486. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42734 by Yorker on May 19, 2007 at 9:12 am

This comments on this article have taught me something - there aren't any quantum physicists here, or at least none who also understand binary. :)

487. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42731 by Yorker on May 19, 2007 at 9:02 am

70. Comment #42723 by steve99

Yes, I echo your thoughts about Wikipedia, I've mentioned before that it cannot be trusted 100% about matters scientific.

488. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42391 by Yorker on May 18, 2007 at 6:33 am

Perhaps a better title would have been "Cyclic Universes" since brane collision would seem to spawn another Universe in every instance. Each one would then have it's own time which would be disconnected from all time. I remember Ed Witten talking about this a few years ago as he explained the 11 dimensions of string theory. I thought then that if it was confirmed, it would make the concept of even this stupendous Universe and petty little things like gods seem utterly insignificant. But how to confirm? Perhaps string theory is the TOE, but I can't see how we'll ever be able to test it using our current scientific method.

489. Manufacturing belief

Comment #42366 by Yorker on May 18, 2007 at 5:44 am

It must be kept in mind that Wolpert was in an interview situation on the phone, talking off the top of his head. How many of us can honestly say they would perform well in similar circumstances? Most of us given a time to think - as we have here - could come up with better replies. Clearly, the hyper-critics seem unfamiliar with his work.

490. Manufacturing belief

Comment #42355 by Yorker on May 18, 2007 at 5:33 am

I like Wolpert, mainly because he thinks a lot like I do, especially about Hume and philosophy generally. Naturally, I don't agree with everything he says - thankfully - but this was a worthy read and I can't say I really disagreed with any of it.

491. The Fastest-Growing Religion

Comment #42343 by Yorker on May 18, 2007 at 5:11 am

My preference is for the Sun, we started off the right way, we would do well to return to it.

Now that I think of it, I imagine a scene where all children are educated upon the importance of our god the Sun without whom we cannot live. It sure beats the crap out of the garbage we drum into them right now!

492. Freethinking Ruins All Things

Comment #42340 by Yorker on May 18, 2007 at 5:03 am

17. Comment #42288 by caledonventures

(Comment on this article not worth the expenditure of intellectual energy)

Yes, Strauss is quite a guy, but Hitchens seems to rate him highly. Us Scots wha' hae sense hoo'iver, think differently

493. Pedal power takes Islamic shape in Iran

Comment #42332 by Yorker on May 18, 2007 at 4:49 am

I have a friend who openly admitted his fetish for sniffing ladies bike seats!

Hello Veronique, been doing some reading lately I see, I've never come across that Riverbend blog before.

494. Pedal power takes Islamic shape in Iran

Comment #42106 by Yorker on May 17, 2007 at 3:59 pm

3. Comment #42046 by Jenin

I think Solera was joking, as I was in my last post. In addition, I think such comments are neither hateful nor racist.

495. Pedal power takes Islamic shape in Iran

Comment #42099 by Yorker on May 17, 2007 at 3:47 pm

Hmmm...could lead to interesting developments, having an all around fairing would give them a good place to hide bombs. Come to think of it, they could install a machine gun inside also, triggered perhaps by the bike's bell push, instead of going "ring, ring" it would go "brrrrp, brrrrp" :)

496. Christopher Hitchens to God: Drop Dead

Comment #41925 by Yorker on May 17, 2007 at 10:02 am

"metzitzah b'peh,"

I'd vaguely heard of this before but how do they manage it without cutting?

Mind you, if I could be guaranteed a female rabbi, I'd convert to Juadaism and let her try as often as she liked!

497. Ask Richard!

Comment #41816 by Yorker on May 17, 2007 at 6:07 am

14. Comment #41767 by CDG

That's a question most parents have struggled with I expect, and like most, I fell into the Santa trap and regret it. Children trust their parents and believe what they're told, it's never a good idea to lie to them, even for the best of reasons. My advice is to tell the truth in a positive way, e.g. we live and we die and death is the end, but that's a good reason to enjoy and make the most of life. Never worry about when to tell kids things, when they're old enough to ask the question, they're old enough to be told the truth. I never once mentioned the concept of god to my kids, but of course they discovered it themselves because schools in the UK still make the mistake of forcing it upon them. It didn't harm them though, I told the truth about my non-belief when asked and they seemed pleased, it hadn't made much sense to them either.

498. The stone is cast

Comment #41809 by Yorker on May 17, 2007 at 5:32 am

33. Comment #41642 by jayalenik

No need for apology, the fault is not entirely yours. As for standards, they are not mine, I merely bemoaned the decline in pre-existing ones. As for guidance, don't expect any from me, I never give it unless asked and something tells me you're not asking. Anyhow, I don't think you need any, your comment 35 where you mention "trying to get back on track", clearly indicates that.

Incidentally, I despised Falwell as much as anyone as I said in an earlier post, I just don't see the point of hateful attacks upon a non-entity, what's to be gained by them?

499. The stone is cast

Comment #41631 by Yorker on May 16, 2007 at 12:21 pm

This was a good article, it might cause one to think that comments upon it would be similar, as we can see, this is not so.

When this site first saw cyberspace, I was pleased by the thoughtfulness, knowledge, intelligence and command of the English language shown by contributors. Sadly however, as it has grown, so standards have slipped; this place is becoming like so many others. e.g.

Poorly thought out arguments.
Testosterone-driven angry nonsense.
Silly, distracting animated avatars.
Excessive use of non-helpful swearing.
Endless repetition of old arguments.
Vain attempts to convert the unconvertible.
etc. etc.

There was a time when I looked at the RDF daily, but now I find my interest waning, there's not enough intellectual stimulation for me anymore. However, perhaps this comment will be seen as slightly controversial so go ahead kids, open fire, maybe I'll check in tomorrow and take a look.

500. Darwin's letters debut on the web

Comment #41498 by Yorker on May 16, 2007 at 7:40 am

Coincidentally, there was a piece about Darwin on Stephen Fry's QI last night. Apparently he was a lifelong sufferer from the rare Chaggers Disease (apparently pronounced "shaggers") which of course raised a laugh. He must have been a difficult man to live with since that illness causes the victim to fart almost continually!